Legal Research
Cases
Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Lucas

Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Lucas

Link copied

Case Copied 25 November 1968 23 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lord Reid, Lord Hodson, Lord Upjohn, Lord Donovan and Lord Pearson .

OGDEN INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD. v. LUCAS

(1968) 118 CLR 32

25 November 1968

Workers' Compensation (Vict.)—Statutes

Workers' Compensation (Vict.)—Death—Statutory amendment increasing rate of compensation—Whether amended rate applies in case of death after amendment when original injury from &hich worker suffered was incurred before amendment—Pulmonary oedema causing death of worker suffering from coronary heart disease—Acts Interpretation Act 1958 (Vict.),s.7(2)*—Workers' Compensation Act 1958 (Vict.) (as amended by Workers' Compensation (Amendment) Act 1965 (Vict.)), ss. 5 (1), 9 (1).* Statutes—Repeal—Interpretation and operation of repealed statute—Right or liability acquired accrued or incurred under repealed statute—"Right"—"Liability"—Acts Interpretation Act 1958 (Vict.), s. 7 (2)*—Workers' Compensation Act 1958 (as amended by Workers' Compensation (Amendment) Act 1965 (Vict.)), ss. 5 (1), 9 (1).*

Decision

November 25.
The advice of their Lordships was delivered by LORD UPJOHN:-
This appeal gives rise to a question of some general importance with regard to the rights of dependants of a worker who was injured before but died after the amendment to the workers' compensation legislation in the State of Victoria in 1965. (at p33)

2. When the claim for compensation came before the Workers' Compensation Board in Melbourne the facts were agreed and can be very briefly stated. The deceased Reginald George Lucas, an employee of the appellants, suffered from heart disease but it was admitted that this disease was aggravated and accelerated by the nature of the deceased's employment with the appellants and was a contributory factor to his death. He suffered from a coronary occlusion and myocardial infarction on 18th February 1965 and became totally incapacitated; he did not work again. He became entitled to weekly payments at the rate prescribed by the Workers' Compensation Act 1958 of the State of Victoria (the 1958 Act) which he duly received. In March 1965 the deceased was admitted to hospital for treatment; he returned there on 19th June 1965 and so remained until his death on 7th July of that year. On 30th June 1965 he suffered a further coronary occlusion and myocardial infarction and on the day of his death he had a pulmonary oedema from which he died. He left surviving him three persons wholly dependent upon his earnings namely his widow the respondent and two children under the age of sixteen. No difficulty would have arisen and the compensation payable to the dependants would have been calculated in accordance with s. 9 of the 1958 Act (to which their Lordships will refer presently) but for the fact that that Act was amended by the Workers' Compensation (Amendment) Act 1965, No. 7292, of the State of Victoria (the amendment Act) which became operative on 1st July 1965. The amendment Act greatly increased the benefits payable to dependants and also altered a number of definitions but the substantial question is whether in the circumstances the dependants are entitled to be paid compensation at the increased rate under the amendment Act. An interim award…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Lucas and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1968] HCA 75
Decision Date: 25 November 1968

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria in *Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Lucas*. The dispute concerned the liability of the appellant, Ogden Industries Pty Ltd, for injuries sustained by the respondent, Mr. Lucas, who fell from a height while working on a construction site. Mr. Lucas was employed by a subcontractor, and the appellant was the principal contractor. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the appellant owed a duty of care to Mr. Lucas and, if so, whether it had breached that duty.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the appellant, as the principal contractor, owed a duty of care to the employees of its subcontractors to ensure a safe system of work, particularly concerning the risk of falls from height. The court also had to determine whether, assuming such a duty existed, the appellant had breached it by failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent Mr. Lucas's injury.

The High Court, in a majority decision, held that the appellant, as the principal contractor, did owe a duty of care to the employees of its subcontractors. This duty extended to taking reasonable steps to ensure that the work being carried out on the site was conducted in a safe manner, including implementing adequate safety measures to prevent foreseeable risks such as falls from height. The court reasoned that the appellant had a significant degree of control over the site and the overall work being performed, which gave rise to this non-delegable duty. The court found that the appellant had breached this duty by failing to adequately supervise the work and ensure that appropriate safety scaffolding was erected and maintained, thereby exposing Mr. Lucas to an unacceptable risk of injury.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria in favour of Mr. Lucas was affirmed.

Orders